HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 9 02/22/2000i
I.
I ,IoFI� I
I
pl ��'il I 'I�6 1 1
CITY OF PETALUMA • CAU O
7 AGENDA I, 1L7L.r
d l e tio g
p_ Possible irecn Regardin Use
Meeting Date
Deartment of Transportation
of p for Construction,,ofrransit
f FundD
February.22 2000
Mall. (Stouder /Skladzien)
R'epartmeiiC City '"
IDirector
Contaet,,P,'erson
Phone Number
Manager /Public
Fred Stouder
Rick Skladzien,
778 -4304
Facilities &dServices
Rick Skladzien
Jim Ryan
.
Cost of Proposal $1.8 million or to be determined based on City
Amount Budteted $1.8 million
Council direction'and design and location of facility.,
Account Number
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item
1. Memo dated June 9, 1997 from James Ryan to Gene Beatty regarding Copeland Street Transit Mall.
2. Memo dated January 31, 2000 from James Ryan to the City regarding Transit Mall update.
. Council
3. Memo dated February 7, 2000, from Rick Skladzien to Fred Stouder regarding the Transit Mall.
4. Memo dated February 16, 2000 from Mike Moore to Fred Stouder regarding. Transit Mall options.
Summary Statement The objective of locating and constructing a transit transfer station near the train
depot on Lakeville between. E. Washington and East "D" Streets, and. Copeland Street as the western
boundary, has been of interest to the City Council since the early, 1990''s. 'In February 1993, the.
Copeland Street Transit Mall Project was accepted by the City Council and submitted to the Sonoma
County Transit Authority for inclusion in surface transportation project, funding I applications. In 1995,
the Copeland Street Transit Mall Project was awarded $350,000 in ISTEA funds followed by an
additional $178,000 in Section 18 Grants in.'1996. TC -1 Grant Funds of $75,000 are also part of this
project. An additional $100,000 in TD'A funds and $1.1 million dollars in - Sonoma County federal funds
have been, assigned for the design and location, of this facility. A total of $1.8 million is available.
However, agreement on a final design and location of the transit mall or the bus transfer station that
meets the approval of the Northwest Pacific Railroad has not been realized. The transit mall has been
part of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan but the challenge has been the Northwest Pacific Railroad
Authority's lack of interest in providing right -,of -way or land for the of the project. On
September 22, 1998, the City Council unanimously passed Resolution 98 -200 assuring compliance with
various conditions and requirements of the California Transportation Commission for allocation of transit
capital improvement funds to the Petaluma Transit Mall. The next step at this point was to proceed with
the further design of the facility. The City is again faced with jeopardizing the use of the funds that have
been set aside because of the lack of resolution of the location of the transit facility.
The City is also proceeding without design considerations: and total project cost estimates at a very
preliminary level ofi'comfort. In addition', the Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District is
not in agreement with thelocation. The question still remains in what exactly are the design and location
objectives of the City Council. If there are issues over the appropriate use of the Northwest Pacific
Railroad right -of -way, is the City prepared to begin negotiations to purchase or obtain long -term leases
for complete site control of the land, including the larger project site of five acres; is the City willing to
settle on another location that meets the approval of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad; is the City
willing to allocate the funds; or is the City willing to return some of the funds?
The City has requested an opportunity to appear before the Northwest Pacific Railroad's Board Meeting
on Monday morning, February 28 ", to present the Council''.s position on this objective. However; an
agreed -upon strategy on pursuing the transit mall' location'is paramount. if y `the City is to uti `lize the funds
in the immediate future.
1
Council Priority THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED TO BE 'P'ARt'OF, OR NECESSARY,TO, ONE OR
MORE OF THE 1999 -2000 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY'COUNCIL ON JANUARY 30, 1999.
Priority(s): General Plan Implementation: The Central Petaluma.Specific Plan
New General Plan Items: Regional and Local Transportation Plan
Recommended City Council Action /Suggested Motion
1. Review and confirm project site and obtain site control for area needed only for transit mall.
2. Review project site and pursue site control from the Railroad for entire 5 acres for future public
and private use, including the City having the opportunity to resale the property for private
development consistent with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
I Use funds for other transit and transportation - related projects.
4. Not utilize some of the funds at this point.
Reviewed by Finance Director:
Reviewed by City Attorney
A - ve y City Manager
Date:
Date:
Date:
Today's Date
Revision 4 and Date Revised:
Vile Code:
CITY OF PET,UNL
TRANSIT DIVISION
INMMORANDUM.
TO: Gene Beatty, Acting City Manager
FROM: James Ryan, Program Coordinator
DATE: June 9, 1997
RE: Copeland Street Transit Mall
On Thursday, June 5, Vin Smith called me and asked if I could inform him of the status of the
Copeland Street Transit Viall. At that time I filled Vin in on what was happening and when and what I
thought the nest steps .would be. It was at this tine that Vin informed me of the existence of a Central
Petaluma Specific Plan advisor: Committee and that they were recommending to the City Council the
suspension of the Copeland Street Transit Vlall. `
I would like to report to you the histor: of this site as it relates to transit and funding.
On December =, 1989, the City Council accepted the Transit Transfer Station Studv. Ater,
evaluating 1 -1 sites, it %vas the recommendation of the consultant that the City consider the train depot on
Lakeville between E. Washington and E. "D" Sts. Copeland Street is the western boundary of that lot.
In September, 1990, I applied for and ;vas granted a Section 18 Capital Grant for S178,000 to
build a transit transfer station. Because of the uncertainy of future ownership of the properry at that
time, the money was newer expended, and even though capital money is generally good for three years. I
was able to keep it for five. Ultimately, the funds had to be let go.
In February, 1993, the Copeland Street Transit Mall project was accepted by the City Council to
submit to the SCTA for inclusion in the Surface Transportation Projects and Congestion Management
Air Quality Projects list. `
The Copeland Street Transit lfall was placed on the FY95/96 CIP list.
In 1995, ISTEA (STP) discretionary funding was made available. The projects were due
by December 1, 1995. The funding was competitive, and the Copeland Street Transit Mall was rated the
highest score in the entire nine county MTC region. The amount was for $350,000.
In September ,1996, I again applied for Section 18 funding for the Copeland Street Transit Mall.
The City of Petaluma was again awarded $178,000.
1 111
it
6 �l
PetaIurna ansrt C;apttal Improvement, giant. The City of
; :«r , � prop
osal t urce before:. �.::
had nee er re9,61i; I subulmed.a '
a lied foi Transit a t dma from taus so (Ironically, the Petaluma:Specific Plan
v ed fun
u C p al' Improvement;, fun ding last year and was unsuccessful.) In March, 1997 the
„ ,;City AWarded'575,000
In April, 1997, in the City of'Petaluma "s annual'clai n to -NITC, Petaluma - claimed 5100,000 in
capital expenditures towards the Copeland Street Tran s ,\%Iall.
As late as 'June 2 :hNw as in the'process -of applying for in Cal Trans Local
Assistance Funds. This funding would replace a portion of the. City's TDA funding.
In total the pro is fun for $703,000, 525,00.0 over its 5678;000 budget. This is the amount
possibly ibly stand' °to lose`if the' Project is susperided or relocated.
In January, 1997 the proVtstons of Senate Bill l -'.7a (� opp),becarr e effective. The law
essentially deals Ill coordination- efficiencv in regional trans'
t:.)MTC is authorized in the bill to
m
coordinate the transit operators :; The further,perifies'.that a'transtf aQencv not receive State
Transit Assistance (STA) funds unles's it'has com:) r ' �iZ�h'NITC's recommendations..
In Sonoma County, SB ls, 4 'brnpliance rested oti`tWO projects, the Santa Rosa Transit Mall,
and the Copeland Street Transit i✓Iall ' w•
,that as to be built; Ln Petaluma At stake is about 580,000 a year
in ST A Endimz. This is about one third,th'e City' , pararansir °budget. (More details are attached in a
operating hour for bo't � '
p h fixed' route and Daratransit to depletion of TDA funding
1. resei� or reduc lt o era loss of STA fun
could mean an increased de P
Petaluma. The Americans'
in J
with Disabilities Act states that both fi:Yed route and p.aratrars it muse operate during the same hours.
Since I was una%vare- of the Ad` Cor mime's existence, and they never got in touch with me,
, I was unable to inl`orm them of'w.hat consequences may occur if their recommendations are met. I felt it
imper-ative�to give you the information so "that you could advisd, the PCDC board. I stand ready to help
in any way, and will attend the PCDC meetinQ.on Monday to answer any further questions they may
have.
IN
CITY P
TRISIT 0-.N
INC TJM'4;�
TO
FR O M .
DATE:
Vin Smith,Senior Planner
James Ryan, Program, C I oordinator
a
Juneb, 1997
RE: Copeland Sfreet Tran's"it NNIall
dtsatiot4 STA stai�ids for Sta' e Transit Assistance. These funds
follow up oiryesterda 2 , ,, s - �'Conv t
are made available ftransit purposes�- The qction �bv the
le--iatur.- and the ov" di 6 r. , These Lnd� ar 1 , �r ..
ed" fund s
The City of Petaluma claimed "S,l 51'965 fbf
1 the Region S6 in
in �l Paratransi fund, an :
population based F'unds.1Th1s;is a total -STA funding funding FY9,7/9 third the
,$- This is one ,
3 in
pattzansit budget in,Petaluma.
Senate Bill 1474 (Kopp) became effe,ctivejanu 1997. This law modifies Gover= ent Code
ary
665 M.5 to authorize ' M to corftmend, the fbllow.i
consolidation of certain functions to improve the 'efficiencv:of regional transit ser-, and
v
improe in service coordination and eff,-� signi'fi ' I ? . .1, 1 . cti ene�s in corridors signi'fi
thro reduction of duplicative service and'* institution of coordinated service across public, transit
inszl
servlc-- boundaries.
The statute Eirther'specifies :that atr"sit agency shall not recei-veg:7,STA funds unlessit has
an
complied with the above.
In the NITC plan for Sonoma County dated February , 19-97., Objgctive 2 calls for redefining the
re- 1 -'11. -
g i
p
onal system of a aner pin rovide fo OP efator service i cusfor,int6r improvements, , public information mark etfng im rovements.
The second bul let -under t heading is �entitled' Bus T= fer,,Facifity Improvements. The
s
aamcies involved ( hat Sonoma Transit S , I S RosasCityBus C of Petaluma, and Golden Gate
"
Transit) agree that this is di " tj the near term to
oi
0 an int: effort that should be t en in
ak in.
improve interagencypassencrer,,se services ands
ystem prodluctil,'Ity. , They will',focus on tw'o pn6 rity
locations for transfer facility improvements - Santa Rosa and Petaluma.
In Petaluma, the City is,jinalizing
. 1 4 , ". I , plans for. a street reconstr that will include a
transfer facility (shelters, bu''s turnouts) inthe downtown are
0
2` l A G E.'V'DA ITEM. # .
3
wIP�,r4.4 - ;KEY ORD: ISTE
A Project I o�ec
t
L Li
.yl. St
i A
5 u' DATE ; February
�- j.�,1ENT: 1�6, 19
L
I 4 I II h
8 DEP
9'
- . 9
10 Thomas S g Hargis , rt
Drector of. En m
iPillu � I' ,1 l Allan G:' Tilton Traffic Engineer g eeinrng4 ° °�r
12
13, RE VEST !Db.EOUNCtL;ACTION•
14
BACKGROUND: projects
the Sonoma
16 Trans rtation Authority ( for inclusion County
Provide 'Council direction to a list of submitted to
po in the re tonal
18 g Surface Transportation
g agement Air Quality (STP /CMAQ) projects lists:
17 Projects and.Con estion Man
19 �
20''�� ..
21 Last year, ' the , City ualified' for'I�
Y q ,1 56 million in the:,first ound`':(1992- 1994)i of funding
2 in the Federal Inte Su
l„
Pa
rmodal. - face Trans rtation Act: STEA'
23 Metropolitan Transprtation
o'' program. Commis "lion ) The
p g equested they SCTA subrri it a
.. C) has r
' , second round lof , the e ISTEA ro ram' (1995 1997) 'by':the en
24 projects list for the d of.
STEA funds. etaluma's „pro e cts to ether ”, - Pe.
26 March. The Ci may be eh able to r "eceive as much a. $1,.5 million m `com citive
y the S �, g other cities and county projects will
27 be evaluated b CTA. Pro ` n '
eats which survive the SCTA screening will compete
28 against all other - proj;ects - in the Bay "'Area�at ° MTC.
29
30 City Staff have met and prepared "'a�`list, of candidate projects. ;The list covers a wide
ran n
32 of o ecttoether with over tar et
our mm ng targets fundi: The , r the
al projects which P
j J g g_ ing will permit greater flexibility dung ri
33 project evaluation process.
34
to
36 Committee on ,the 1lth.of p b
y SCTA'
35 The projects will receive a rehmin screening' s Technical Advisory .
37 pnonty °based upon the February: The City will then prepare a suggested project
38 success The . r relimin scoring y
p ary, b SCTA which will maximize likely
p eliminary priority' list will be distr buted`:. the 'Council meeting.
39 The Tecl'nical Advisory Committee of ,the SCTA. will; meet again on the 25th of
40 February to seleetcandidate projects be included' in the,SCTA''s submittal to MZ'C.
41
n estio -
oJec� will be evaluated IaG MTC on o e of criteria whic
43 co . � ,.
,_ I pe g h includ`
congestion relief, improwjP ,transit rf rmance, and safe
r
44 wi g Pro ects wh ch fac 'ell
- tors as
li have the best chance of being funded in the comptyetiti�eJcacegones, Projects
45 submitted under the competitive categories are not , gLi teed funding.
46
47 The following are the projects submitted to the SCTA for screening and. initial scoring
48 on February 11th. The candidate projects in, this . list are,INOT m priority order: A
49 revised ro ,ects list will be pred "tb Council ' g
P .J ,
ovid
50 will be prioritized. based upon the'results of initial S.CTA evaluation"' The revised list
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19,
20
2- 1
2-2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Ii
32
33
34
35
36
37
38,
39
40
41
42
43,
44
45
46
47
48
.49
50
STREETS
Lakev,iUe! Street Widening - East % ington Street_ to East 0 Street
This project would widen en Lakeville Street to three Panes between East Washington
Street and East D Street. Widening will occur 'e easterly,si ikeville'Street
iden 9 r �th deoft 'La
and will not impact existing structures: The Widening -wijj: sign�i:fl'caritly
capac I I -
aqity flow on �theLakevilli�,Strt� n turn, lanes a
. t-
the intersections., This section is a portiori of �ffie PeWuma'Boul6vard Downtown B
Pass. Y
Lakeville Street,Ntinoir Widening - 0 East Washin ton Street'
This Project would widen the ,northerly approacti of Lakeville, Street to I three lanes t
a
East Washingto,n, Street. 7 . nje, of widening will signifl"cantly impro - capacity' and traffic
ffi
flow. on the:Lakeet corrido' v e
, - r �by addi.hg a left turn lane In! the 'northerl leg: the intersec eville Str
tion.
Lakeville Street Minor Widening' - Q PeWUma Boulevard N
e aid Nor-
This project
w ' widen the. northerly approach of ev
Petaluma B�'j Lak ille Street to three; lanes at,,
4 evard Nofth. They wid6nin u r wjjl on the northeastOrl M
- .- impact existing structures y c o rn er and,
Vill not
ti The widening will -
w 1.�signifiaihtly',improy capacity'
and traffic flow on the a
Y
e Lakevillt, Street corridor by a, right turn, lane..
D Street Widening— Petaluma Boulevard South. to,,Fourth Street
This project t Would D n
I Street by, six feet adja�eht to"Wal ut :Park lo' four: lanes
between Petaluma Boulevard 'South
and,Fourt'h Street The: widening _ ,w occ in I the,
walkway, area and, , wi_II , not eliminate parkl ' The'videning will significantly
capac ci . and traffic flow On the D Strdetcorn'
improve capa cor proving a, seV te ri t,
id h ,
turn lane ,on D'Slreet..
Bodeg'a Avenue, - North Vebster.Avenue to City ti'mits
This th
B PrOJOU would widen 86de'ga, Avenue 0 rOe lanes, plus bike lanes' and sidewalks
between North 'Webster. AV6nu-e.,and' the C14 Limits near � Ban Lan n "
T he
will significantly i e wi e ing
im prove capacity and. traffic., safety on Bodega 'Avenue 'by rerhov'ing
prove� capac - . I
the•road drainage ditches and providing. wi '
T RA N STT
Copeland ,Street Transit. H EastWashingtonSt�r t:Tt6 East D,Street,.
This prqj,d�t would construct a transit hub (Bus Transfer 8�ationj on Copeland Street
between East Washington Street. and D Strbet 'L tr services
ocal and regional -arisit`k
would: bdnefit-. ,: Passenger shelters an i
new' traffic areas wi be :included together with a
,
signal Copeland Street- and East Washington Street. Thi . S' project was
ddentified"in the 1989'Tr Study performed, b'y Associate's. �s.
P
T
14 'a 3 ,
iI.
.
O a Itlo' II is
orthwestern Pacif:'c Railroad Authori
September .15, 1998 S "EP 7
c r 7-�, 7, ,9
' r 1
Mr. David" Miller
Hanson, Bridgett
333 Market4S'treet, Suite 2300 0 C
San Francisco, CA 94105 -2173
C
Col
Dear Dry ii] r 'y?!L
Re: P, ytaluma- S. tation 'Site'CooperativeAgre'emen't
There are three independent and on -going planning effort s that w IF:directly affe the future use.
�"
s in downtown Petaluma.
11, 1 o Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authorif
de Cit of_Petalurnaa Central P PaR �a . , sic e
These efforts inclu y
For Qualification Plan;' Sonoma County Transit's
efforts to secure federal and -state monies'for a bus transit transfer facility; ands NWPRA's Request
s for the Development ofDowntown.Petaluma Property site (which your office
is reviewing).
A meeting was held on September "9 1998 between staff of NVP
and City of Petaluma. The "purpose.,of this meeting was to share i or?nationm obta nnay Transit
each effort, and discuss how to coordinate the three planning, efforts,. It was agreed.ahat one or
more formal Cooperative Agreements that established various responsibilities should be
developed between NWP
RA, County of Sonoma, and City of Petaluma:°
It was further agreed that NWPRA'was probably the agency in 'the best osition to dra
desired Cooperative Agreement Planning staff will prepare an'�initial 'lists of matters
would suggest hich it
e agreement addre
est tt g ss. At that time, we would; the opportunity to meet
with you or your "staff for di app
scussions regarding an initial draft.
Very truly yours
Jerome M. Kuykendall, P.E.
Director of Planning
and Policy Analysis
JMK: ke
c: Carney J. Campion
4 Frederick Stouder, City of Petaluma
8:C \word9\nwM\pets�09i
Box 9000, Presidio Station, San Francisco, California 94129 160'' -1' te]e0h9ne'(415) 921 -5858
r
, g
b
i
,
u June 22 1,999
IVVIPI ovals" for development of new Petal
9 urea Transit Center
on„ NWPRA Petaluma Depot property
The following issues may need to be addressed in order to secure NWPRA Board of Directors
approval for locating Petaluma Transit on NWPRA P.eW
>�P« property.
Preserve existing uses by NCRA
Currently, ail freight ope rators use a
Y g pe portion of Petaluma Passenger .Depot for office'space.
The Freight Depot is used for maintenance purposes,, and the baggage shed' 'is used as 'a
4a e shed and the southern ba' o
De f dated ,into the 520 square -foot
baggage g personnel Th� g ypo ' .
recovery area or train se uses ma be console
Y
g e Passenger
pot and most of the Frei ht. De t'
e Freight Depot, thereby allowing the enter
g po to be used for erther transit or commercial' uses. Or,
alternative sites need to be identified for'these functions.
Preserve existing historic structures
Existing
of using excess buildi=ngs l f om °the development of the
either
tiansit 'or use. The
possibility g exces p transit center to rehabilitate one
or more of the historic Depot buildings for auxiliary uses .(restrooms .information kiosk, bus
ticket sales, etc.) should be explored.
Preserve feasibility of future.rail station
Space should be preserved for rail station facilities, possibly including boarding platforms,
ticket vending area, passenger drop -o,ff ( "lass -and- ride"), covered waiting area adjacent -to
platform, public restrooms, 'baggage and small package express facilities,- and possibly a small
dispatch office and /or support for inier -city or excursion train dining cars.
Facilitate future-bus-rail transfers,
A clear, direct, and convenient ''path of travel' should be, identlfied :between proposed bus
boarding bays and future: rail '6ihs_itI °boarding platforms. Pedestrian conflicts_ with motor
P '
vehicles should be minimized and if lam. ssible 'eliminated along that path of travel, i.e.,
pedestrians should not have to cross a bus access road to reach bus bays, commercial areas, or
automobile parking areas.
Preserve development potential on site
Commercial 'tenti development al of the site should be retained to the` maximum extent
possible. Adequate aceess be ,,pre'served for dnve"way access to future commercial
development footprints, and on street .parking should be retained, to the extent possible.
June 22, 1499
Transit Center Study
Petaluma - Transit .Center study will need to identify alternative, and preferred `layouts 'for .the
center at NWPRA. Petaluma. Depot, site and, address the following design. parameters;;'
Routes using the transit .center
Petaluma Transit: routes,
Sonoma County Transit. routes
Golden Gate Transit, routes
Qther services (Amtrak Thruway, Greyhound, ,Air' ers, etc:):
Bus schedules
Service hours and headway on each. route.
Bus - to -bus transfers (existing conditions)
Which routes are (or' could, be) timed to arrive and simultaneously to, provide ti4t,c'd„
transfers at the, Petaluma Transit Center?
Bus- .to- rail.tra'nsfers (future condition)
Wh ic� feeder routes would be provided in the future, to connect to arriving and departing:,
trains.
Bus boarding bays
Number of bus boarding bays . should be equal to number of buses per pulse (maximum : number
of buses using the transit center at any one ti me)' plus provision for future service increases.
Ingress/egress s
Paths of travel of buses. entering and leaving- the ;proposed transit center, to /from major, streets
(U.S. Highway 101, Petaluma Boulevard, McDowell ':Boulevard, Washington Sttreet,. Western
Avenue, D Street). Traffic analysis of ingress/egress routes to /from Washington. Street and/or'
D :Street.
Change in bus operating expenses
Compare the change in vehicle -miles and travel..ti'rne of existing routing of buses to the,
operatin from the existing transit center , at 4th. -and
proposed. transit center with those•of'buses g . ,
com n ; �tem for
operating, total change in o ratin costs for ,p
pe g each transit ° rovider as a basis
pang - a penses for each service between alternative transit center locations...
Pedestrian access
Destination or origin,:of bus, passengers in central Petaluma, "should be ;known. This' will help
determine the path of travel to. be used by bus patrons for access td the transit' center.
NorthWesterh: Pa"t"'i i'd R�ilr..oad''Au,
, -, , I , " , - - Y
_ VORANDUM'
It
File
h ,1 1,;,
1 '. I P I "
F
M David M. �Imon, Sen 1o� ��and �Maufic_e R., Palumbo, P Plan ° ner
DATE..,, . 7/1/99
SUBJEdt: Nj w ,,.
ith P etaluma concerning - proposed Transit Center at
NWP De pot REVIS
REF: NE R 54384
A. meeting was he�d,on Wed �da J 2' U N W
PRA y, une 3, 1999,at Petal ma'Citty� ]Rall� with N PRA and
GGBHTD staff- A,jist of attendees ows,
ees foll
Mr. Ryan,gave for bned background Son C& n 6 t' sit- receii ed ran F-
TA
_ MoLW T an Section 3 gWts the construc6o of, al" Ulti, sftx�Facd I , , 1 1 1- _.� " f, ' ty -1 uring.,thei;'Ceh'i
Petaluma Specifi P lan Petaluma:,
of City y, �.(City) decided to locate the'propo�ed . -
NWP RA. Petaluma ", , tr,4n s i t
center on the Depot 'site. Mr. R propos
van stated the ransit'centir t
w ��a."ommodate,,",up to.14 City', =bn a Transit (5' o 6
m t
bu�es),,'.'50norna County Transit (I, to�2,,.,bqses),�: Golden Gate Transit (2.; vt 3 - h6*ses)',.G Greyhound,
�ak Thruway, and various airp6fter services. It ,� 'a1;s6:1'ncl6 shelters'and
Amtr
icyc.le
storage. NNVP n I
RA Board of birec t6rs; aDp roved' i nvestig a`6 n &�,th co cept,but did approve
the October 1997 plan developedl.lty consultants. N-W_PR'N Board' ,requested a study to
determine the operabonal needs for buses use 's'a(t the--proposed tra In order to obhg ate
'funds from California Transportation G , ty (CTC) C
eeds a written c-ommitment
from NWPRA.
All present agreed that the NWPRA pro' rty. w2Ls.an,-
pe atibn cqnce for the proposed transit
center, but that NWRA " di r .. . �1
regg. i.n&. site -, develop menj need`:1tb,' tessed prior to
entering into ap agreement, for'use of pi
petty by City. MrRyajn has recentf
al' to $50, for a tran ra study. " A Est 0 f* cry . a to be inchided in
- center opera ons
the center stud" "16ped b,y$ �W staff, w8 prbviided'to C, ' y,,4.6e, ' s (copy
attached).
Discussion ensued on"'a variety of t , 60ics, n'cl'ud,lng:
]Flexibility of site layout to accommodate future developm'ent. NWTFWS,`n'eed' to
construct a U development On the property was emphasized. A layout for
the proposed transit center pre 9 rp s. - S -VOTRA
89'was shown for Mustrative ga se
s. o
staff commented that t} e proposed layout, appeared to occupy too ' - WpRA
m of the N
property and would pr6bably not - be. acceotable.
ld E I .
Memorandum to File.
June 29, 1999 Page
• Flexibility of transit center to accommodate future growth'. Mr. `Ryan stated that the
existing Santa Rosa transit mall has outgrown its, capacity because of increased. krvice,
[N;: B: , a, study completed earlier this year., by Nelson /Nygaard Consulting Associates, 'had
concludedahat the Santa Rosa, transit;: mall has: adequate,capacity..]' He stated the: new
Petaluma Trans t�Center 'should be designed to accommodate
- v
Packing Concern -was raised over the need to provide (off-street) parking as, a support
function for the ,proposed transit center. It was agreed that parking would be pursued
separately, .either as .a temporary lease by City from NWPR.A until develop mentbccur"s or
as an integral-`part;of he ultimate development plans for the site, but not included in,
agreement for ; the proposed transit center. City% representatives 'stated that.the° existing;
transit center at 4th and C streets has, 15' s P aces`and this supply was'.not sucien't for
current demand. ,City representative also .stated, that lielocat on 'of the ,transit center, would'
provide additional parking for existing commercial uses, in the downtown ;area. - [N.B.,;
following the ;m eedng, Principal 'Planner Maurice Palumbo and Senior Planner David
Solomon v,isited'the'.ezisting transit center.: At approximately 1 - A p.m., all,off_street.
parking stalls were observed' to be assigned, to either Welts Fargo °bank employees or
customer parlang for. the .Copy Shop at 4th, and C streets. No on- street spaces;,. dedicated °to
transit center patrons, were observed, Off- :street parkng, appeared be adequat]'
e. r-
Mr. T1 t on , reminded meedn ` attendees that a. (recently expah'ded) ' stall park - ,and = ride:
g
lot exists only five. blocks (one-half mile),away' at ,.Sonoma- 'Niann Fairgrounds. Even w,i h
urpose; use of this lot, he described tsP site to be generally underutilized.
the multi = p
Petaluma Transit:and Sonoma.County'Transit currentiy opziate between the:
Fairgrounds park -and: -ride and the pcoposzd ,transit center
Project schedule. Construction must: be'gi'n by,April';2000., City needs 2. to 3 months o
issue and receive bids., Therefore, an agreement must'be signed with' NVVPRA by, the.end'_
of 1999..
Level of agreement needed It was unclear whe her `CTC requires,a signed and executed
lease g or
a reement , ,or whether lesser form of agreement, example a letter of`' tent:
agreement to sign. a lease) would be suficient to. obligate ,funds. Mr. Ryan would`
investigate further.
It was agreed that Mr. Ryan, would. provide NWPRA/GGBHTD staff with °a copy of,:a.draft
Pe p Po Y
consultant sco of work, and ro sed stud timeline for review
Attachment.
c: Wayne T. Diggs
Jerome M. Kuykendall .
Alan R. Zahra
Gregory ,A. Nordin'
Bryan Albee,, >Sgnoma'County Transit
a:c'ma.od'a.priVbtTCm�.OtAjoe
Memo_randurn i ,to FI'�le
.June 24 999
ICI ":,. I, N u q . o l �_ IIN t M rc n• ., . Page 3.'..
i
e
a
Petaiuma„ T , , .
rarui't Cenfer Meefu"
aPetaluma C'ity,rHall
"
Wedne June 23,
1999
,�.�: a ,�„ � • .l I
- Attendance List
`E. Clark Tho mpso n
,,,City of Petaluma,Ntayor „
Pamela Torliatt
City. of Petal °ufia. Council member
Alan` Tilton
City of I Petalumal'Traff ' ic'Engm'eer`
James. R
III �I Y
City o fPe,taluina `Transit u
Michael C. Evert
City of .Petaluma Supernsing Ci,VU Engineer.
Gregory A., Nordin
Golden' Gate Bndge, Highway and.,�Transportation, District
l
Transportation Sug nntegn dent of P
rata ons
�ansportation
hi ,
„� aurice P. Palumbo Golden Gate Bnd e, H, hw,a an Tr D i tct
Y , ,sri
Principal, Planner
P
David M. Solomon
Bndoe, Hi hwa and Transportation,,,,Di .
Golden Gate g y Strict
b '
Senior °Planner
. .; Gina
1 �1 114ays`tack Marketpl'ace,
nrta Pellegnni
Camber,
P,etalu n ,
a ,area h lof Commerce
y
i
l
Project
Description
I
Petaluma Depot Site Transit Center
Nh . -
al
'The, Petaluma Depot Site Transit Center is the l p od
of Petaluma that liistoncally was the ` hub " "g Passenger r and freight r- P transit to
the are
e tow Ong ublic
the mid' 1980's the to r uc
e �rsttrio Fourth and' C C' Street 'bus stop etaluma..;Depot, as the prtmary site Ice. Since
to relocate the
, p nsfer fac .,. order to handle the increase in
t� h passenger �servtce, _ to relieve the �exisnn.''a com�inercta °Vresidential area that is impacted, by the
Bus TransfeP St at Fourths and `C' Stree and.to meet the oals' and objectives
ITH existing, is
described below, the. ro osed Ian sho�tis bus •loadtng:on
streeV
both sides 9f , a newly developed transit.
Of 1, bd acen uses Transfer St
t to the exiting Depot buildings The nelx
Station wquld serti'e. a maximum
at any one , ti he specific im,provenents ":for this Bus `Transfer Station, mum
strele�bi the
secting site perpendicu to the De of o in_s. the bu .
n� . [r
th� nsit st eetll` a isles h
lar to Copeland Str" g
s I I',; � s .turnaround /.��r�le_ .,the
P
helters; ,and, other`arnent %ies "' - ; d ` scap ; ing. lighting and all necessar.
r the station to the me °t the nd
p e
ping and potential local ons toil osl. The d Ci O Pemluma be!
ansit.providerssuch as
landsca liel:es
relocation of the existing Bus Tcansee Statioml, to the Peta, Qepor, site,. accomofi_nes the
foliow',ing objectives
o'f l? A , to 1
,II ,
Based on the follocvm` proje t ` uma iris devz!'uced a pro�act sz ietie ` r
- _oal� the C t�
the Pztaluma Depotl';TransitCenter:
! -: "'Reduce bus con_estion and lav'over at the Four and •'C' Spree; bus stop and minimize bus
"' s P t IF III ` I.
tra fc on P ,aluma Bo
ul e v ard .ber%e�nWashin`_ton'and Street:
'_. e a bus a strop_ tran'�it presen
transfer station` es t on fhe'Pe aluma Depot
'Develop that esta'o1�sh _
i
lon_ p and thereb' "° nc a g
Ern hasize the Depot Bus Transfer Station as the iran,it°loca'iori of toinmuters not reaui'r;n<<
term parking _
commuters repu'irin`J P oura {n Par, and. Ride racdi "ties for use b%
use or or
long terra " arkin'g:
1 >ith re_,ard ;to the ongoing_ "etfortslof the Czn`ri P ;iauma Spe�itic Plan the Petaluma Depot
Transit Plan p
Ian satisries the foll.owm T b ea; on'Cc�inmittee:
o iyes,of the S e: i;fic Plan Ad,v
a) All future transit facilities wit! be cOrcentrdied in one location' cre'at'rn`, a mutaall,
supportive transit i center'
b) Of the a acres with ,development potential surround'i'n`_ the new' Transfer Station- over I
o't the Ce nra P taluma Specific�P- laPand the nsistent , with f i' '
th transit oriented ob ecti�es,
Sonoma Mann :Multi -Wodal Transportati,oii
and land UseIStud'�I..,,
C) Maximum tle':�ibilit`tor tuture';'development" on ro
the ,three acres is pvided by: leav in_
Cupeland Street as a I public «street available For access to this'si"re rather tlian sclell
dedicated' for bus S'
M ensuring a stron"er relationship to the adjacenu pa'rce!s to
the west where; the hi probability' of compatible development is to occur.
"..
d) or the C otSPetaluinafe e 61-shed t hat was the historic trap
' P. ' "� stablis in'an area f sportati`on hub
R
4
,,, I. . - 5' I. . i I�'� G' . , Al i , .• ,,.. .. i ., , k „I I J BHP.
tv
February 8�
�!lT Vi'IICent';C..SlIIl AICP
Senior Planner
r p..
City of 'Petaluma
11 English Street
Califo
Petaluma, rnia 94953
„ 'il I
RE: Petaluma Bus Transfer Station
Design'
r,,.. I� Vin; i
ROM uP P L.
Bus rans,fer Statlon; +an Petaluma mit the attached roposal for „design services related'to'the
Design Gro to sub ,p
mi eet —one �, We e`eCtr'
this p hick will not:gnly� serve Ithe ^ needs of the' colic abou r the.opportunit� to.work on
ar b emel•
mmunit�, and represent the first step
of a fu me a catalyst for development , wi in
Cent tfi ral Petaluma_ We believe that we 'bell q �,
itv but al „ to undertake the project; based.
wi6 s e orlc effort as wmilar o ec and w bled a team of consuitants to assist
u � pr � i s e have assem
urban e f'ROMA s worn over ver the Y past ve or fi ten years has b een focused on improvements to the
nmerit for ytnans and, transit; andrtrans�elrtattoor reta� I rving and a wide mix
of ur
P n ro . l sho
ban aet sties. R eceiltl constructed transi po p o�vntown settings
include the San Mateo Transit Center, Santa Monica Streetscape,Master Plan (including the
P the Aloha Tom er Honolulu, the Embarcadero in S Transit Center in Suisun City, 11 if i t Mall. , the.Inte
P an Francisco, and Llruon Station
p ” Los „ eles .
I'll chitec
pro�ects� includinQ'ar Arigtliial � Vin, fo ROMA s recent work h� s � „ t oriented
as focused on trans
scorpowntowne light ps at the Sari Jose
Transit
brat da o the San,Franci Ferry;'Termi ' j
Mall; architect gn f ,.
„ destri nal Pro ect including bus
liwh Tai
for�three,,asm Corridor stations; and the conce � e t laps and urban design
ART and an interface the con p p
Pe
g pdesign;�of the planned
9ART7Caltrain station in;Millbrae
esi in ects incl u rd Street Pr
p P Promenade in Santa Monica',
d .. i Statio
is s ace. ` l "nterinodaI T
the a «'.ard wi „nrun n ainSu sun City,” the eisign•of Pacific Avenue in
Santa Cruz,,and the design of the.Mid =Embarcadpro Roadway and' Open:Space project in San
Francisco. 'in addition for the past five years, ROMA has. been the lead; urban design consultant
C 1 1 lr y •,.
T[L Y jai
for the Railyards Plan, which, re de 240 acres., of underutilized'
tans porta on lands for more intensive transit -oriented, development in downtown Sacramento_. .
Part of'mat work: includes the re routing. of rail lines and the integration of 1'ght;rail,and frog as' well
, s the design of anew Intermodal Transportation Terminal., All of these projects, require extensive
knowledge of •transit interface, and; sensitivity to. the history and °appearance of.'the area and. its visual
and urban: design quality. We,have an excellent understanding of the ;technical
, operational and': .
aesthetic issues: affecting the design of Uarisit stations and transfer faciIiti'es,, and can tiring; these
into fgcus as'a part of our work in. Petaluma
ROMA Design. Group will lead the: project team,: providing overall project management as well as
design „leadershii - p:. I think thaf,you are fairly familiar with how: who we are and how «e work:- but
I would serve as' the Project Manager; with, Bons 'Dramov as the •Principal ` 'Charge and Jim
Adams providing support as, necessary., In, addition, Carolyn 'Radisch, would, be the Project „ ,•
Planner. Supporting ROMA, are:
•
Korve E'nDneemg - 'T,raffic'and Civil Engineers
• Nelsor0Nygaard - Transit Operations
Simpson; Gumpertz & Heger Inc.. Structural Engineers. ,
Katherine McGinnis and Associates - ADA Compliance
En&eering;Enterpr se - Lighting
We h an n fuarthehewhich w e rovide v leaseletme.know on W
� p �. : e look forw�ard�ho the oppr; if there'is -'
anything p please ._
_ � ortunit< • .;
Of working with voua ga` 'ori;this' project
Sincerely
Bonnie Fisher,'A'SLA
• Principal
.d.. it +rn. I 4
APPROACH`'
i
The Bus Transfer Station will become a po, public ty , tradition
r 9i :,
n im rtant blic facile within Petaluma. In the tra,.
of the best, pnbhc ,projects,. it will need to serve of diverse purposes. It will ,become an
.im it tra landmark 4 and � links fewa Des to . -that v �snall� a �� provide sfor�hnka' es ;.to they l
v , try , i, creates a Pocus of
;
activity establishes stron g, . armed rail
1 , IT i keepmg.,,with4 the histonc character'of depot buildings At the same time, the Bus
, Transfer ,
Lion wilfineed.to facilitate transit and operations, It will need ,to provide for
the efficient. movempent' and; tran for pedestnan accessr the loading : and nil F nally,
ig of buses, for
fer of ssen ets fo oadi
q and' waitin'
th
Arkin and should, ueuin
b
e development of the Petaluma Bus Station, „ TI. 1 the community d the
, an
quality of life for its :residents. °uld,�reuzforce the. identity. of II
As shown ont ' and, described
" °.,,,he s
� �, .,chart a sal .
p nll� later in this prgpo, see
hedule ; more f
the work being completed in three-, nmary stakes: 1lie +first' phase; of "effort wi'l1 build on the work
alreadyAndertaken in the'sketch- concept, and will, be critical in, confirming" the 'spec fic program and
design critena for` the prod ct a ,th location phase of work wi relationships between.
and of bus , ba�s and the- relauo
functions , and, the 'n'e'eds of pe This ` . ll be� completed Within one month
of project startup., Th'e second,pbase Hof work „ will `be ,aimed;'atideveloping a schematic design the
site and facilities. The final phase of the work
ill be aimed at assisting the City with the completion.
of the environmental review d ocumentation (w�h ch. ass umes both SPA and CEQ 'documentation)„
and the presentation of the, plans for w approval' and adopt ow;by the Planning Commission and City'
Council.
As shown in the scope of work outlined.in the. „ Schedule. Chart, there i.re 'a number of ke�� elements to
our approach. These include:
D ire ition ,of rfant to amain an understanding Op po rtuni tie s. nsi I I h arly , , t 'I, , cess, it -will be
fz Transit and,Pe estr
melt' impo a a opera s and existing: and projected future:
us
bus ,, f uture commute opportuni -ht rail, taxi,;and an s paled th t aumeetino r
to ensure ut re not foreclosed and to facilitate i charte
Y on with
er rail,,,on ti a nsit'operators and a''reN' ie� of ide existing and
w:i'1'1" be field earl ;'�the tr
projected future patronage +requirements.' Specific user needs, in terms'of amenities as well',as to
cces's, will also :be. identified The object will not solely be focused T .
onaccommodatin_ the functional
rovide for elders and des needs of transit but also to Me trmine�'how this new place can
become ,a_center' that reinforces' its identity as an entry and threshold t "!;the community.
Desi n "o he. Public Realm. T1is ro'ect involves noi'onl' the:
g f ` p ') design of a ubLi facilities, but the
design of a''larger site and' its,relattonship wr a larger redeveloping Central'.,IPetaluma area. Key
considerations will be the configuration of the Depot site into new parcels, the location of
access: entries °into the parcels' for,'the buses; the circulation of buses on' site relative to routing within
the city and`destinatious; pedestrian' amenities (shelters, water fountains; benches', etc), bicycle parking
u r Po���. � , '• ��, , „ h .. 4 11 � '
� °6.h�„ I „,. i �. ” : °' J�.. ur ..� ',';rq � d,, Ina .�. _ � Poi, „�� i � d�„ a ui I ^N�• .. .�I;' „.. ,, , , � G. „,,Y W' 1' .., _ .
area, the treatmentand signal phasing &Nhe,�two to .'in
S Y tmwcbo.as at E&t and;D
treetlla ceville; the inte tion of the
Prop�d .traffic aairnle. with "bus station improvements an with
P i spaces as well as the. amass
the
adjacent ned u�ercial y; a �� aon, and treatment plaza, and its relationship with
site:and its contnbution to the Central Petaluma area . be' cntical to success of the
all could be ,og entiall reused as 'sue e�ildin wool
Buildin Deli It °is assumed that _ g gs d be retained on;,the site and some or,
pt y
pport .facilities :for, the bus station (and . ultimately 'fo; support -
cotnmuter;ra facility. as. well)., Modifications to ,these :buildings Would ,considet- ih it historic interest.
and character-.
Phasing and, Funding Strategy p -
As part of this rocess we would develop a project budget
would be compared with identified funding sources. A funding
eusrtin'a, on -site users and the surrounding area would be ' ed With ng s staff,
relative to
e ) developed with, City staff::
-4-
'1:41 :I � Y 'I Y i. 'q nl t J,
I
.. . ,.I � n �I ,. �' �� •�,
The construction of a new hus transfer !station at the 'heart bf la communitv° an important occasion in _il b pe It should be viewed,
as m o s public, works project Aimed, fulfilling . 11 the life of "a city, ed, not merely as a
char na o ra .. , eq •
ty•. project envisioned an isolated iacti the
clonal r uirements, ppo ty redefine and "revitalize the core of
The ro ect should be envisio
� a r vision ,f ! on, :but as one of a se of steps that
ci
will 'be deliberately taken to :achieve �a broader or the central area.
;i '
Lakeville Boulevard -bone eatly to P hl� v'i' §ibW it is, located on
e entry roads tut P, of
o the �
J sense' of lace
nma s _
line''tracks. It is closely tied to, the'' ".commumtc`s rul. . ditlons, and' � and n�ht on the main
of the ma or heart
tra connections that Petaluma
establ still used to some extent. foc.rail ope ratio n „d the ;North,Qoast- "Today,, the,,site is, owned b:y thel and is
rin an
e 4 �l
. i The 'b s. l are of
dings - in particular the Depot building -
� a ::. d . ,
is e ou rail o '
historic and architectural i nterest'
e opportunity for intensification, and is 'being planned as , part of,
Depot d the lard
The De t site.,has th pp `
Central Petaluma Specific Plan., Therefo •e, ft important`that1h'e design of the Bus Transfer Station
consider the broader 'urban design context and the potential ;for development that can occur on the
site and the Bus Transfer Sta `on can enhance PP h to the desi of the area will be to explore ways, that
ti eas RO�I�'s a rw,, pedestrian and" land °`use linkages to the surroundine
areas, the river and downtown, and to contnbtite 'to,the�revitali'zation of the overall area.
la addition to cousideration. of
ban desi_ t
p � LL ` a`n context, it w i ll be i critica . k
l to resolveev
broader ar
issues related to traffic access for:1 estnans and ,bic cle's as, well as buses and' cars. ROIL will _
providers to de�•elop a safe and attractive
facility that utilizessallocat with the Cite and ,oche% transit r
pa rticipate in work ovide
allocated resources •in the niosi cost effecti manner. Traffic access to and
through thei station area will" also' becriti'cal considerations in particular, "with the intersections of
Lakeville with D p 'ement of Copeland and its li'nkaae to
the newrane' Was} n�ton S the Street as well as ' im roe
traffi '
"
Gro, p will be the 'pri me' co'
onsultant for the protect; responsible ,for: the management
.,.
of the consulta "
RO�La Design u pre rati
paonlco ordinati'on of all work :`products; day -to -day coordination'.'with
. 1 P y P�. J
o p „ p . This is a role that RONL' has la ed„ on numerous . ro sets,
n tea m
City and ublic,:: resentat►ons
all of the dimension " 1 .�t. What we.,offerrs an understanding of
iii the design of transit facilities "'ithin an urban context.
s of the; protect, from transit operations and marketing, to parking lay -out and
public -space design,_ We .have „the� capability' to' undertake , all , of the work 'tasks:w'ithin our own office,
with specialized consultation from our team of consultants.
The following describes more "specifically each of the"
Work tasks which would comprise the Work,
resulting'in, th preparation .of the Schematic Design,And supporting, environmental review .documents
for the 'Bus Transfer Station.
Phase I - 'Project Start 'Up
The first one-month-phi ts
ase for q�irem cOnfilimingthe- key progra e emen , ; property ow
ise neeents and':establi Iii' d c Tor soec. ific
na esign n ri
components. This - phase,, and the� o�*ralfwork program, be based upon the initial, site DIdh already site.
the Depot s* re-a pre pared
,
Task I.I. Base maps; and Material& A base maps, photographs and materials °relevaht; to this
project should be assembled, by the Pity and transaiittedto ROIL I ONLv . In adcfition survey'Of'the,site
�should be prepare&by the City -and ro RO-Ni at an appropriate scal ' 'el with relevant
,
:Information (e.g. ownerships, rail right -0f -way, access C. ui in a
'ided h of the three structures'on'the ie', h '
plans will also be prodded, eac easernents,, et S e I ). B I'd'
'Task 1_ Meeting #'L A mee will be held, with City .staff and selected representatives of public
e
:be to gain, a better
n6es, providing future transit service to 'the' site. The purposeof this -task would'.
understanding of transitn
eds,and existing and future operations- Issu
ues will includ but .not be
limited to bus'bay configuratio: right-of-way and -turning dimensions (both length and width) :AD.
requirements, pedestrian crossin-s and fencing - 'hti,ii- incr T6q.uirlements'.(if anv),,,Ilcr standards,: warning
devices, signa, ore, 'bicl. parking and restroom maintenance etc., In addition, the relationship of this'
facility to adjaceAt, de)�elopment and freight rail and. future Comm uier J
djscus�secl. rail-. service will ''be
Task L - 3 Access' and Circulatiom In this j
task,. an und'ers,taxiding will 6e fqrmqlatdd� of the, lar�er
�(Vr, V11- a in particular, m access.. from 'D Street, East 'Washington and a. new
Traffic Circle.. ill be reviewed for their impact on the intersections at Lakeville and the
Task 1.4 Ruildinzand Us���'stin includiii& b - usetrw4lbe re :.viewed.
This task will existing Weet on the, s ite, I invgJY�ejec nnai�sauceqt/the'_exis /
i. 4.;; eral
assessmee f e 'need for. stru yadcs,-an -nts� In. additi' th n 'e 11 I pro On, the use-dEth
� Veme
te�- �Frail operations, Will be reviewed and a!plan, forreloca6 g: these services elsewhere, developed
All
Task,1-5 Site/Enginem
, endirations. ian will -also undertaken to T 'identify an deq'identify y ti te
conditions - that would present a cons int o r for the Bus Transfer Station
tra op
porturd
Project Ge6tec hnircal conditions, site' topography, rai -of4,ay and easements will be, reviewed.
based upon the 'materials prqvidedby the Citv.
6 - I
�Ir6 - I
"
'. G •I ..� ' '
J I N
u
^... .;•� : . .� ..• 1 ,
HOW
it
u
I i
i
w
Task 16 M tingds review ez stin si
eetuig #2 Thisl second mee g to conditions; to .identify possible
gaps in i
iifriiiati phasng.lofo'm.provementscuss potential issues.and to reconfirm th'e scope "the project and/or
' �
Phase 2 - Schematic Design
1 ,Task 2.1 Urban Des Conce t IlTliis task will finalize °.the layout of
P a bus bans based upon site
" and operational considerations and the program and projecti,objectives identified in thee,first phase.
The relationshi with ,fanned commercial, , residential; and retail, d nin` `and entertainment u
I l l 7
P y implicaanl be
j . ii considered, and ann
urban design concept will„ be ,prepared ,to,, more!clearl identify the
s
", that ., one may, have on the other. The urban design concept, wiltifprovide a qua itative dimension to the
to-be mended prog ain and will hdi`iat an ch
ted and p Pa and build ings
e the nature a stnan a scaler p rela onshi h 'to s ad a ent buildings
ndlinkaaes to.,surroundin� areas,and:activiti
e acted, in an
elo d:' Creation of a e
and, rail, a es will be d� „p � �illustrati�•e plan for the.
site.
`.
.
T ask o roc ed #with This
or mmrit of theschematichdesY�. G' rre�view^ng the urban : design ,plan,
Sul ..r f, O wi ll, s ..
Task f rt r the streets, building(s), n s landsca w and o t n ss aces b and � bays• w lldbe eetin Q, a schematic 11 po p ro m
design V n plan sections and elevations of °the b_ ldmj J
w il l Prepared. This
pe bus
estimateswill be deuelo d for'ithe ro'ec aloe with a h 1
trated i” riate. Bu
ui (s) as appropdget
Pe,. P J. '. g p asing strateo for'implementatioa.
2 well a bud et es mate U p rp° es of'review na the desi�i for- the Bus
:,. 4�Meetin # s i _. . s an dl r Old
s
phasing, ti as
by. 11 ,d to , brainstorm ^a, potential °implementation and
3 Environmental rpocumentaton "and" Presentati
Phase•. ons
'Task 3 1 •,E&ii•onmen ' Review Documents
and �k a ill; P a staff. kt City ff. in the; pre araPo o
, . D �,o SiQnificancong
ROB u al ' " m' is assumed that the co ect will reveta Fndma o � f _uments For p
t Impact
SeS It
C � /
ONSI tinder N E A, land; a gative :Declaration" under �L EQA.� RO �'La'; will! assist e City"l in the
;., II �,N �. ematic D � an for purposes of en "vronmental reviepportin, material dra wn primarily
preparation,�of the ;enviro,
t , -
from the Schesi ' uent fare and Q • be
wand documentation to
N undertaken'' "separately in +";thel' q p Lrbaii�Desi , t Plan.
Task.3 Presenta" dons presenta
" - _ t' p s will need to d , decision= makers, and
made to. tes pecti�e
Public resen
for purposes of bud -e ttvo "suc$ presentations are assume
r
Work Products
The work, products t be:'prepared for this work include one copy, of the. following:
:Urban Design,Plan:(for the site; and immediate surroundings),,
Schematic Design - Drawings (plans, ;street section and ele s building, sections vations)
•' Budgq'Estimate -:for Construction -
Environmental Review Support :Materials (assuming a Negah've Decl
aration and,FONSI)
WORK SCHEDULE',
As •shown on the enclosed schedule chart, we -are antici . tin'a an a
pa o pproximate four month time frame .
for the completion of a schematic de_s.i�n ackage for the Petaluma Bus Transfer ;Stati'on: ,
a P
The first phase of work' is aimed °at confirming pe program requirements the s cific, p - ro ' and identifying
functional relationships: The second phase of work is aimed at refinin the deli
g, gn concep the
ts, already
informaOn assem ,and provi .ti� _
develo ranst agencies °and C staff and ,in consideration
b p _- . in..the preceding ,phase �of work. In this ,phase plan drawings
and cross sections will' be, prepared to describe the schematic design to be� as.ihe b48* -for the
desi - develo development ;The last hase will be aimed at providing assistance
p p t.o the City in
com 'leting. environmental re view documents (assuming ai negative declaration or a Finding of No
Significant Impact) and .the public presentations .:associated with project approval:
ESThMATER FEE .
As shown mores .. ically in the enclosed _fee break =down, the consultant team' bud et forth e
project is estimated at $6770 for work: undertaken ;over a four month., time , and °resulting. din.
the schematc'desgn for''the'facility, and the environmental review documents necessary to support a.
Negative ,Declaration and EONSI'. More specifically„ this esti awd:fee assumes !the, followinv:
A survey of the; site will `be provided, by the City to RON
,Building' plans of qh will, be rovided to ROhfA
p
No 7 haz l ardous waste delineation or -subsurface investigations will be undertaken:
u',,e . f r
of Peal� .. .
s �: Ol'Illai
'. I I I Iv ` "i 6' . � � �,����� I qi Oj�1,11
3
li it i� 4 It
a k rAPPRO�IhIG THEW C'ENTRaL`PETAL'UiVt '' ' SORY COIvt
: IVfITTEE S
6 h
, .ION TO'RET�A §IN �I � E R.AILROA'D ��P,YDITIE IN ITS °.�CURREVT "
7
LOCATION AND
t,
TH
LOC 4 EXISTING DE POT'BUIRD_ TION ADJA TO THE
I IiLd- .E -
GS � T
,t'o: y ,
11
WHEREAS.
m P lumal eneral Planl " "" the
develo
1 , the City :o,f Peta �; identifies the need to properl y plan for
l� ' ment and `redevelopment of the area surrounding,the downtown, and;.
EREA . Co;uncii' of
preparation f S
ption o a Specific P,lan/EI for the ° area ,generalt reed to, as Central P� d, the
WH P R ,the' City tvh efe itv of Petaluma I a
I S, on :June lti� 'I�
411996 uthonze
U6.' created the Central° Petalurn'a' "Spec;i is Plan ° _Advisory Committee as the working: committee to
17, ,create the, °ands l w G °
. 18,,
lfa�nl�ne and location+ �`
'0 on road Au4ust 1997, CPSP Advisory Committ eefocused on,.the issues of location
�S
of the IRa'I " �of the .Bu_s Transfer Station an cone�lu''ijed than the
should be located directly ad acent to the le xistinQ cation De Buildings as ansfer St
l maanl�ne �hould retained �n„'its�cu,rrentl�o _ ille and,the :,Bus Tr, anon
_ , g.
P close .to the west s'de- of
>�
23 ''thz "buildanas
5 EREAS p ber 1
crl o,f°the Git�< ofuP.etaluma c
�i wi
2
6 cecommen` , tv n
4 � onsidered the
W H' d'ed' I'an from' the ry ,C'� 199 the C� _ Cou
y , on Se tern : pSPdviso Committee , for purposes
- fon.the Flood ControlPro� e direction 'to
rposes of, providing direction to
P
' 8.' the C
omm ect and the Bus Transfer Statiomproject,' and 'provid
7 staff
�. ittee on future; land useiandlcircu 'lation.;p'lannInQ.,for th'e� Speci'fc Plan area.
_g
�1 mainline in" its c l _ �,I n,ity CouncII dlreceS the°raii�oa"
,0�. °_ NO��W THEW �� , ocat� �SOLVE�D that'the _ _hand ��use and circul'ationn' o d
ent V -- staff to, retai
n for u„ oses of,co ti - jn� lannm� nor
B
3 th e Central Petaluma S' P rP P
pec�fic Plan,and ,
>> ` negot�ati'ons I w�th ° the North tie t Pac fi Ra IOad ED the City Council d'�i "rects staff to begin
HEREFO
�5 ad`acentto' the De �'
3 7 - �u h,onty to lot
the Bps Transfer Station
pot:Bu_ilding-,sl:
�u
38 a rrdirtes �� '9
Urid" the er', and a nferred
.i paw o _uthonty'^ co upon this Coun bil r the tCharter `of acid City. -
r REFEREi`10E' Council of Y C`�ty o (Regnlar)� leg Appr � to
day of a �
on the E1.1<tL _ OT
fouovdile ote lid Y the
-_
AYE , to e Tor u y ° City Attorney
gad, Keller, Batt,, IVlaguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton
P�
NOES: None
!ABSENT: d
1VIayor H Boss
TIES ...��. f _
Cl
CIerk or
a' r
t
, Y � !Ir Id7 M
m' Cb+mnl F' '
CA; 10w85 „
:Rea Va ,..9 ( b'U
i ;i
K etalL�maa I ll,, EnI Street
^ POST , Office Box 61- Petaluma, California 94953
:
!
Ilk
m
Railroad Autho
;
TO Board of Directors, Northwestern Pa iii "" Railroad nty,(NWPRA)
FROM �
City of :Petaluma
.m,
b
RE ! Re�onal „4t,Bus Transfer Station on Petaluma Depot Srte
RE LTESTE
Q, >D ACTION.
C Petaluma with ry Sonoma Public Wo rks The C• s' Sonoma'Coun , .�PPo , arks and Transit .
De ^ artmenLs” Ih a
i of th th rt of the Coun of ,
Transportation Distract" requests th'e', "r o'fw „Di co
d the 'Golden Gate.Bndge,' Highway and
�'; ectors 'of the' N�WPR� n "s der caking the
following -actions:
1, .. ; Approve,the concept ,of a Trransit- Cente- ':atthe N RA, Feta a bepot','Site.
t 'Atll'
t thet,installauon� of irn� ro�.ern r a„ de
b y for
2.
D irect staff p e in cre
atin all nece
Y Board to �'WPRA pe rmi t to articipat I I. „ P j ent�, o do b rn fer final approval.
the ermi
.. I station in the
location shown on the Petaluma T
ransit Center Concept Plan: trans
3. Drec' ff, -yt;
Ni NWPRA
i to return, inal a ;proval of all- �nece"ssary
• t , m to the Board of Directors for f h p r . ,
agreements /documents.
BACKGROUND r
' As the Board may know, ' the " l C
ity of Petal is currently preparing, the ,Central 'Petaluma.
Specific Plan..(CPSP). Once completed, 'this Specific 'P.lan will �pr.ovide the long 'range
development objectives for appr6ximately.4GOnac -es land gill provide on
measures necess o
s and - ob�ectities of the plan The
;.Depot site , owned by
�•. CPSP� and is
h oal I
to e� e t
b 16u
ec ` p e ton term transit oriented
' P g ty 5 Pro e-tv to th
deve om ent the Ci has`' for this s tea ' d or the CPSP. g '
develop meat of a t ansit r ,. �' received a Federal, earmark o`f 51 million for
know „ g Bqar may not r
e Ci has
p ether with_approxunately,,700,000 programmed by the
To
us transfer, sea
Ci to r6lb 7 sting b tLon at Forth u -and "C , Streets to a site in, the
n er
the e e�
� vicini care th �� APP
tY of P, „ , y' n ^ mailable, for
construction of �this� e
. � '. ... __,N pPl �. DThe City s original plan w o locate�theM b� r I _ '
ansfer station: on
- Copeland Street„ the, street defining the western �Wbound'a7 of the �,D�epot site. Howeve
111 following review of this; pebp by the 1 PSP .Advisory Comnuttee (a .26 member City
Council appointed committee established to oversee creation of the Tt Specifie Plan), on August
i b
5,,,.1997, the Coinmittee'.:recommended shrftin the transfer' station'' to the`east, ° `locating it
adjacent to the Depot T buil ti dings to create: a uniform .and "tr an'sit h ibeL,!
^ On September 15, 1997u the Committee's recommendation; was, confirmed tby' °the` City'
a
Council. The Coup. lies .trap staff ,,to begin .discussions w ith ,the NWPRA„ to explore the
directed
” sit facile d acent to h
opportunity of locating`t ty a
�� the Depot buildings (see,.Resolution 97
260 attached).
.:
•
COL.LABOR.ATI-YE EFFORT
S Counl p b' the Ca of'Petalu.ma hosted, a meeting with. representatives eseutatives from the
Coun lie, Works and Transit Departments, the Golden' Gate Bridge, 'Hi
and Transportation 'District,; and the Sonoma. Coun . 'Transit, Authori SCT
tY ty
( ) . At this
meenng it was; agreed that Petaluma is,;in the strongest position to take advantage of recent
Congressional, funding
earmarked for tntermodal transi facility development. 'It ' , was also
agreed at this- meeting that th City of :Petaluma should commission ROIvIA; the City's'
consultant preparing. the CPSP, `to prepare a pr , _ _
ary transit center. plan showing :a lies,
transfer, station adjacent to the existing Depot buildings to take full, advantage of any future
alternative transit ;modes- Implemented along the; NWPRA1 corridor. This group .of :City;
County and Regional Agencies also agreed that the, plan and a , proposal b'e� forwarded to the,
NWPRA, for - discussion at their November 17` meeting.
TRAINSIT CENTER PLAN .
As a first step toward discussion °wi'th it-he NWPK -' , R0 - ared a reLmin ;has .pr e p p ary
Transit Center Concept Plan for the Depot site' (see attached colored plan). This concept plan,
is the result of`,input from the Advisory Committee: and other members of the ROVL?
consultant team including traffic engineers and transit - planners. ` The P etaluma Transit Center
Concept. Plan, and all other: materials included in this , repot have been reV ewed by the above
r
listed agencies,; how:ever, lt. `should ,be noted that this .ts a conceptual plan and ,has not been,
thoroug reviewed 'b all the trans prwv ders. The Co
y ncept.,Plan, is ;intended to be a.
",jumping off point" for discussions wl h the 'N VPR A, .
The plan sh&v," bus, loadir - on both sides of a newly ;developed ,tr,ansit street adjacent to the
e cistmg Depot bu For clarification, .bus. route access is pro�'ded .in the grapli below
the colored site plan. 'The following objectives are addressed by the proposed Goricept'Plan:
All -future :transit facihnes 'will .be- concentrated in one location c eating a mutually'
supportive transit center:
Of the: 4; acres with- development, potential, over acres' ,are - provided for future .
development consistent with `the transit 'oriented objectives of ;the CPSP and the
Sonoma%'vfartn. study (e:g commercial, service, office, and)or residential uses).
• i&1a' i mum flexibility for future deve
lop meat on .the '3= acres is provided by leaving
Copeland Street as a public, - street ava�lab'le.;for .access' o this site rather than'. solely'
dedicated for bus services; and, ensuring astronger relationship to -the,,adjacent parcels to
west where'the highest probabrlity °of .compaiibl'e development is to occur rather than,
P g.
t e structinQ a'bus terminal on Co eland- and :creatin a,barner betwe n;e,,Depo
•
construct
ori 'b, th t site an
sites to the west..
• A view'and access °corridor tsprovided from °the Depot site to the db*ntown,- a,specif c
goal established by the CPSP' Advisory -C mmittee`to ensur "e a strong =isual:,an'd access link.
between. the, historic downtown and thelistoric Depot, site. .
• A "t_ran stttpr " esence" is re- established m n area that was the. Historic transportation hub;
The specific improvements proposed.,for. the Bus Transfer Station, would. include: the ,transit;
street 'parallel t6m the Depot buildings the bus r-umaround/circle; the, street bisecting: the ,sire.
perpendicular to Copeland, ,Street; 1 'andscaptng. lighting and all necess shelters and other
ar, .-
aazneruti.es for the station tQ .meetthe needs of the transit providers. ' The traffic circle shown, at.
P gt
Co eland and. Washin _on' Streets';and the', other; improvements shown on Washington Street .,
NWPR"A, -Bus Transfer Station on Petaluma Depot 5ie• 2'
I r,F 8'
I, ,� • " P I�d' PP bus trans
� Thes i im ovemenu would be tnSf alle as
they are not•, needed for the o erauon of the fer station.
•
P r - as Ciry
sponsored Capital ' ImproveIIient' P= ro`jects All l im ue occurred and/or'
SP will be funded, installed and
m aintained, by the City using „City „funds and other State andaFed'eral' funding sources, no' fiends
.
queste om e NWPRA
TED
r ,
OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS
�r ! COMPLE . .
To date, and the
P P ry p'• epared prehmenaryla.nd use alternative
laps for the entire S edi c :P P P
IIII lan area'and have h re v ared a prelimin Tocused'land use/urban
Turni plan for the Petaluma Turnuzg Basin Area which includes "the�•NWP.RA Depot sit e.
gn
Turning, Bann Preliminary'Plan
the orts and Bnhn relimin Pl an focuses on.
g g rproviding lance uses and a c latio
ircun plan that
ary
PP . lo p a str integrating n o co nmmer a
c ale offic� aaa e: plan envisions this area as
"2 h e o t u1
,,. .. s_idential' uses to provide
P P Implementation ve o went
will provide a reseden � f:the plan subsequent to the adoption of the CPSP,
no
P ual, commerce d. employment base in proximity to the Depot site
g ,
suppo the transit oals enumerated iei the Ciry s General Plan and the recently completed
Sonoma/Marmi Land Use and Transportation S`tudv.`
Attachments: Colored Site and Circulation Plan
ry
City of Petaluma Ce Coe ncl Resolut . n supporting the ,Bus Transfer Station
Nl -- Bus Transfer Station on Petaluma Depot Site
3'
nr
PETALU
MA T'RANS'IT CENTER CONCEPT PLAN
PKEZ PAKED FOR THE CITY-,OF P Tr;tUtvi�: BY SOMA DE �iGI� GROUP, OCTOEEK 1997
i In f I
Ip 1 u
1 I 4 ' ,III'•, tll � i l � � � r ..
I
ur f r4 �Lij
o
t
t _ '
., � Jac:. � �. `• � —
[7
1
F
�.
Ic-
,
/
r
Q
� 0
r .
...............
WASHINGTON
STREET
V17
04-1
CD
ICI rr
Pm
Cm
�, "� P '�'� U .� n. d , I + i. - -.. �y. ., � :. � :- � u . . . , yr, ,: _ _ _ - • I
,Less
�« zs�a
V
I'
I
I
II I I
It ,W o
V7 A91G I V 1 I.
t
1 :
I ,
, L�
°`= w
Q'v w'
LLJ
fir
i ,.
C �
a' /
W
uj
:
2
F IN
33
LLL f-U
a
NOEL NIHS T
IY
III "x
J
v]
'G
:c
Z
cv °
� U
y
z z�
� Q
1
i 1
I.
C
_
lT
i
1
1
r
1
6
con.,
1
1.
r
i
I
1
1
1
1
I
r
1
1
1
,
�
PIC
z
�
;
1
CAI
a
.�
o
cn
u .
Q
_
J
CAI
cc
C�
U;
c4
C,
Fo
i
v
r1�
C'.
• 72
C
s t
U
m I
v
U
G
r
I
L . "� +NLw; 111111 J .I :. r,; .w,p ,. .,• y ., ,; r -
h� I F � _ 1, 'C I 0 � ' ° 'I u , If 1 � '• �u
„
li 1�� „ 1r , ', .• , '
it
a
.FiftI II:Rep�:ort .
en
al°
® r
rl ter r a n s -t a:n s. e r
. 1 IL I I P
,
andl
Park a v -�.de a vili,t
Y
'III^ p.. -w • 1 _
P'rep•a'red `for the
r� ,I C!i t r d
v .
Y' of 'Pe"taIa a
�� 'rc P l�lrFyl }�ui�;l1 �a
I�h *w;?t g�� I I NIS Nw �P7tl �'N"O Md I
Ol,! U:, 1 111 1 +u' I���ollrr IN'l!
. _
n,
. I
q i .
° I
L 4 -
0 •
,lit 7
D Ass acliat'es
in association with
x!.11 - Thompson + hAerrill A'rchitec`ts
ill March j 989 .
i
r�
0
r� d EXECUTIVE su VL1�i "Y.
P', P f y r, .r ions for
This, re . ort re resenu the resulu
P o an .,six month. lon stcta to determine the best loco
etaluma central transu transfer ,�s„ etaktrrta, although Sonoma. Cotcrtty Transit ens
I
well„ as a new par and -ride facility for transit
Y ry f
I' . � o
The agency f P and
Gold the Ci o , P
also, bee a °
` ate Transit have
en G � to _ r?rocss.
' n tm.olved to the I
ea n en or e s
nn
Present Conditions.''
N 1; 1 ' .t tge,bcci :irg at the comer o 4th and
S ��t
Petaluma ,s e t center is la.smal Ir�' 0 s vcr f
ii C Streets a few blocks sourh. of the downt yon. core (see photo on the following pace). R r;ership
at ithe exestii117 trarsct deb of is proba`blV on the order of 5, ,0 boa,:ding passergers per weehda -v (which
r
J z lodes those who transfer at 4ih and C f Toro one oils rote., ° to anoth'e'r'). Sicrvey data shover.
II f eina Tr.:anstt ana' 194 for Sonon a' Cocenty'and for Golder.
below
I ' Gate Transitthiteis in
n1 , recent data available for "eacn oren«or:
Transit Svste:m j B:oardires.
Petmluma Transit 1;05, le.o c
Sonoma County Transit 11`6
Golden Gaze Transit
TOTAL - - - 567
Assruning �mmetty of hoardings and' alight:ngs;dtrrzrg a °- -rotir ee. cc- period then about 1,100
daily P asser. -er trips prodmblti encc7 of the trc nsii con. . GGT's° share of tr:'ps may cc
-, + ✓/ ti since .1 ,�.
f somewhat o since th,eir''rid`ersh phas declin � some ; ..
The Aleed' fqr tlie, .,Transit Center .
Petakcma,s xsting General Plan IQBi ro oses that various it s'oe ^ developed as possible transit
nd /or. anti and rule 1 '.
f ( ) P. P
l centers .a ' ° r lots. The locations sho,vn on tr._ C.r✓ �. and use map tncude:
P L
Redwood' IVay (in Redwood Business Park I)
Corona Road 1eDowe'll Blvd:: North r
uN " °i Rainier Avenue tracks
Lakeville - Highway/ E. Washington ,(old NTti TRR depot)
r Lakeville Highway/ US -101 (SE corner)
�I ti
The locattons these faciliiies,were dictated $y proximity to the � orth'western Pacific Railroad
.' (1V IVPRR�) ma "tnitne, i -hich,is currently lrsed by occasional frc ght trains, bur co'ttld be aurpted for
o ,
-
, WIC „d i b
,
' fittare comet . :_r rail or bus'`use in the fi'ttl�ie. A110 th
f ese sires were. izzcl:cded as long" list candidate
- sires, although the first _rnvo are fairly remote from the center of the cin•.
There are several reasons why ;a transit center will be needed in Peraltima in the ftttcire:
I. There is need for bl
addirional, "ldentt tae sires that would encourage ' -
f - o park-and-ride usage. The
transit center would be a tangible symbol of the .City's commirment to promote transit.
There is a shortage of,places to easily, and safely park a car dilrirg the day. In the future,
as "the demand for commuter parking space grows and parking tends to . "spill ov& more into
g,
adjacent neighborhoods, there, will be increased, pressure by` residents -to Iii all -dav parl�n
thereon , •arcing committers to park in other locations (and" discot'cra ng the very beh avior than
we wish to encourage). The transit center would reduce the spill' over of parking into residential
neighborhoods.
fr „
3. There is a need to provide a location tit Irh su iclen raciil es to provide svnchron_ -ed "timed
transfers" benveen bases, at a place that is safe .and com-enient for'trars riders. This "vas
reconzrr,e :tied in the recent Five Year Transit Plan'for P' :ai ma T r <rSgl.
4. The trr a center could' also' p rovide parking for ?.7JOI-�� and,_'•' R. =il oCLS Ilse
5. B4V erZCu rZg people to' park and lolil a ca1,� OGl or 1 e Ilre b' l de tr', i15Ct CC! .. a'OL('Id
reduces t .." I problems'!in "tlie 'Ci y and along Hi r.:ry 'I Gl.
G. Land i r les are escalaring rapidly in' Sonoma Colo m« ;rg il:e cos pf the tra,r 7 cer.Ier
Cat --r e..ch year, perhaps oizr of "reach •compietc. in a e:v e , ;:;.
"' )' In a fe:v more yeas,
Properly ray be" so prohlbirively expensij.e th,t the C wotcld no longer b.e abie to afford a
faciiin. - %iererolre, as a nziriru(m, propel" acaus«;rt;i:ot(d prGCeed as early as possible.
7. B 17701 buses out °traffic and trrto special bus iii G (: area, the rraruit osr::er would
reduce dela }•s a loci ted buses stoppirr- j: rr c; '
Sites Evaluated
Fifteen sites to e ei- aluated. The factors in the evalua:ior. include si_e of the par -c2 .'. shape,
frontage, exist ; and proposed transit sen ices, ease of access for buses and autos, traf:cc impc cr,
et t iz,� pla�ns,ard zoiin� hv acct access;'safen; irr prop enzents needed, compati;i;�iry with
f t}, . envLronmertal. unpacr, and cost. of "hese 15
o pta ill
sites the consultant recommended our sites as high potenrl sites for el"alitcttion in ftcrfher' detail
These four sires were the exi ling depot (4th; and C), .;he Nbrthwestern Pa "c
if "ic Railroad pperry
(Lttl`ei-ille and 'J.Pashingto`n),, the LibrarylFair� •ounds area and the vacant parcel at the
northeasterly comer of ;TYashington and Ellis S ire or
Schematic sue Mans were "drawn for each of these "shoi sites, and the plrns were el. aluated
in further deptt.. The eonsirltaau feels that one site =- the A onhwestern Pacific Railroad (<`T�PRR)
depot property -- ''stands out °itboi -e" the rest as the prefen-ed site (see next page).
0
LI
u ' e J'
a ' ransit center to the : 'General Plrrr. , iz T
Tnis sire rias alre�dv b e e n deryzared s a
g 1 s, mui of a large rye
and good shape, has fairiv cod acs s� from several: ma or street ,
and rriost of th s parcel.es presently for sai� As a secondary, considera it appeai3- hat the szre�
locatio and .,vzstouzr� o thts st"
n' .•J f aeons or oc zself
to a si iftcant joiru „use” of :the
Such as ,sire with otnerr,
nom- tofu o oan ' _t�luma a /comriierc l uses: In e depot btcilarr.�s, also have. por�ant i ' h.s
toncal Significance to P' ^ , the transit center protect would be ab le to' accomplish two
thzn:
Bring p eople. to closer •c�rsrac wu
P t � k the bict.'d rites restorr'� there to rhea .
o, , r or; .:
1914 to 195 8 nal use from
:vhen.'the�� were a garewav to petaluma `
�. Prdvide the baEdings w4.i i hlol er level of rraintenar c thin
rivate railroaa ovine
^n thev have received from their
costs
cr c n '7na
The role cG'd COSH Gi COu c O 1�'tr 1 erre <rs -to the s r iy : .
. p nS n
is, at ,rc�_rr .e. . 000 to ;1
mtllcon Land acazistno coy are not :o:vrr
s s�Nc_ he,� will e
o severe acted suole to r. ; or ::'on Bzca:cse
f re rrs. ors or re prole it s nc even �os� ie t �� r;
f h o; o cot a Jc r;�e: v
Or the prOCe'iv 1 .LP +,2r it c remora^ , ~ a.:ce
costs mat' Ge on 1126 GId_ °r or 1..7;, lOr pl'ar ._n�, pilrvOSa ;O; Z� e t bra: prG J aGCtcs Gn
� to 57.6 miucbr. or. the entirz bi -
are 'lihe:y to be S? to 5 rT. iiOn I OE. 1 "ii r Gr_ IG: ' Drojef: cost.,
Firzancin�
In any pr j a
o ecr o f �j - � s �•orr,�l� �c,.'s rcr pro'A -r � ,r
see -era1 sourc Trrce i_�•,a oomen: rr�'sr be obtained fr ,m
a '1.2 j Ilna'n!. scz r ^r os "a ve Oe en e✓Gi .. ?mpras = "j
each of tice lotto tile; as
• Pi=ocosed trq, aoria nor ales tfZ 1 and S tag r.= errrodal fords
• Eri m secure Fumt's
• Joint de,velborreni (pctc ^ornate ?a'r r ershiD j
Since most of the fzcrtainT sources are a:scre:iorary (Le_ not o carats eed to Petaluma), the
consciltant ,cannot matte a da r, '
rzrti:_ue )ta rent on, whether the projec e
can obtain ade ua
financing V6Wever, in all throes scenarios, a appears that
,reasonaole ars imp�.o all point towards
a corzcliision of the protect oe:n�' fznancially vialbe.
Next Steps
best guess estzmare . is that rev transir center could" be comcleted and ''boerzed for business In
apDroximarely. wo , three years (1992 or 1993). Th actual o ths ' construction should only take 6 to
10 mn weve
peon, to con tritction there needs to be several other ac.:vities:
0
v
Site NWPRRD,epot: This srte h�a�s been recommended by the consuttanL Ul
and development: There a're seve,al1 to na.tiv,, Ia.vouts to this site, one aiianed p.r.imari I v
along; Cop6and Street, an'd oneia Washington and.'th'e raitroad's mai'nli�ne tracks. A
portion of this lot is for sale along the western ('Copeland) side of this lot, eo pris ,:;
about 3 8 acres. The entire 'block bounded 'by° W'as'.in; ton,' `Lakeville, D S it eet, and
,
Copeland, is about _ acres. Of this,',on;y about 2'to acres are needed' for the transit
cznter's needs' -in the y car 2 r
The chief advantages of this. site are mans:,
• It is a large, flat, rectangu'Lar paro I located 1iose to downtown
The site has been de Lana ed in t ". Ge,. . al' Plan as a transit :cans om. ._r m, li:�c
d ,r � _...:poses for east
'at f .19 vea,rs
Th . site 'has been use, f or ��ans� aacn -
It is located tea'c two major str:eea se -,,ng" -Much of Petaluina «'asn n eon a-d
Lakeville' , ..
,If the NOrth�vestern P'acific'Railroac lire is de:•:eioped into a juice av "t ;� :5if ss
in the 'Future, this re- presents a'n id-ea:l statics site.
The depot buildings' have,' Creme :d;o,`us historical value to; Pe:alurna., a,nd
renovation could be a sdur`e of'tr „e ;r, CIO ,us pride to all its: citizens. A sine la ,o'. t
that is oriented along Washtngfon.S'tceet (rather than Copeland) "o . id. be t-Z
inte? rate the main passen :zcr depot °:building; into the site.
The stze ,o.f the parcel and. is Iocation,,le nd themselves to joint- deve1!'O'p ent of e
si a "(see Section" 5 S).
Because
of severe deed restrictions,on the property, it is'I'ikely. thiiat the City could
acquire the parcel (via eminent domain) at below what a similar parcel wino.ut deed
u The raifiroad' rop. '
p ertywas sold in 1370 for dollar with .�-:e
t ould re
restrictions : co r .
r on
restriction tha �t w revert to. fh sei °le.s unless used. for rat'lroad puraess. This
restriction can��'be over,ridd:en onlytby eminent domain proceedings •bv a gov nrnent
agency, or' else ,�by' _- onsen;t, of the heirs of the sellers (who are a%va ;e. of the
restriction): "
25
TM O r, - f e a`lu i1 English Street
• t
l f P
Post Otfce Box 6i -- Petaluma, California 94,953
f
Mayor
M `
: Patricia;Hillisoss
Planning Deparnnent
(707) 77843
Vice;")Mayor F jC (707) 778 -1498
Maft,Maguire
January. 13, 1'998
Co i cilmembers
Jane Hamilton
'David`Keller � , '
Nancy. C;'Rzad
lklarv,Sfompe
Pamela Torliatt "
RQiN1X Desi to "Group
Attie: Bonnie' Fisher'
1a27 Stockton = Street
San 'Francisco, CA 9=11
RE: Scope of Seri °ices for;Bus Transfer Stati'on,Design
Dear Bonnie
The first plan you produced `':for he?etaluma Depot Site Bus. TransferqStati'on'ha "s been reviewed
p
by the transit rov�ders, in Sonoma• County .and some issues with access and circulation were
identified Several of,the tran' s'it providers;are. also 'concerned with.th e;grocess the City has been
folloN%in to achieve the project. lt;�was' 'a�aree`d by the RO
_ p
arou that iVi, should be asked to
submit a Seopeof Services - for the project "to be revie��,ed by the group. It was :also .,asreed' that
the City of Petaluma s1'
ould' - nu -ate' its project' goals `for locating the Bus Transfer Station at
the Petaluma Depot Site.
Project Goals
The following is a list of Project Objecti•v.es for you to:consider`.as° you. are a Scope of
Sen ices `for this project:
1. Reduce bus congestion and lavov"er at the Fourth and "C Street bus stop and minimize bus
traffic on'Petaluma 13661'e� N betw en W 'shington an "d `D" Street.
''2. Develop a bus transfer', station that esta'b'lishes a strong presence on the :Petaluma
Depot site.
Emphasize 'the 'Depot `Bus Transfer Station as the transiti location• 'for' commuters not
•requiring pdfking. long °term ,parking and thereby eneoura'gina use of other Park`^ and Ride
facilities for�use by-commuters requiring;lons term parking.
cr
C�
till be lookma for design plans for the Bus Transfer Station, environmental analysis -
• ( C,E Q. an d �IEP,A) for the'proposed new bus station and potential. improvements to existing
buildings,to.complement "the „bus station - (i.e. commercial, public/driver rest - rooms, other service
uses). N kith ,resard to the on -,site facilities to be included with the transfer station: water, sewer,
storm drain, street lighting: and traf iCsignals should all be included in the design details.
�� Y ^rW Ow•KrCME YW -
Request for Proposal,- Bus Transfer Station Pao e
Scope of.SeNices'
ma or wor
Please send'a detailed -Scope of Services addressing the above Prgject Goals° and tdentifving the
k elements, products to be delivered, atime= frame %schedule for completion of ,major
work.elements ; , And a proposed budget.
At >;a:minimum, the Scope.of Services should 'include: h
Introduction Provide.an introduction to the proposal and;your understanding ofthdl services to
be provided for the project Identify what you'believe, o he th
key project issues.-
ers_ n 'el` Identify all kev personnel, .!and all supporting'staff or 'sub- consultants - assigned to°the
P o n
project: The project manager shall be expected tobe available for discussion with City staff'and
for two public presentations:
Scope
P - anticipated Work
of Work and �titethodolow The work rogram should ,outline the
elements, and the w ork, LLtask "s to be conducted 'should be set forth in, detail along with a. brief
description of ,the: methodolbQ}
Staff Responsibi'l iti'eslTimeline .. Submit a : pread sheet. - identi`f ins personnel: their project
re``sponsib►lities! and an .estimated amount of time expected for each task.
, Cost` , Summar�s Present a breakdown of the total.cost and estimated person 'hours bv each ,task. .
required to .complete the project (this can be combined with t Above). Please include, tioura:�
rates; administrati ve and associa'tedoverhead' expenses, including indirect etipenses for graphics,
pre paration ' of,repom - . 's,ubmission :of reproducible copy etc.
ubconsultant Oualif_ ieations Please .proV i'de references aft resumes for any ' subconsultants you .
intend to; use (if different that `the current list• of subconsultants on'the CPSP'Team). The Cit4
reserves .the n -ht to request that prime consultants, consider other- subconsultants if.' in the CirVs
view, a better o�.erall ;product would''result.
Please submit the;Scope!of Services for the Petaluma Bus Transfer Station by February 1998.,
P _ h the transit; providers in early February to -discuss
P
the. Scope of Services and would .e�. ect that your would attend. The enact date «•il be
e fare, attem tinQ to schedule a meeting wat
forthcomins'
If you have :any questions. or need ; additional 'ihforrriation ,pl - ase contact meat (.707,) .7,7$u 139Z,:
Sincerely,
Vincent C. Smith_ AICP' s "
Senior Planner
cc file
vcs %rf
d: \transR\,romarfpi
q _ ect Descnpiion i Jaafificati6n.SIteec
for Projects Sabiiaittted for Elie b'I Section;11 Nonurbanaed.AteaFormnIa PmQram
o�+�►
t _ (? Agertcv C ►
2 Prajot
I. Program Y ear:
- tign t[,Ehe
I ,
of� .For c3 r�l
Pra tx;t,Desc � `
r
pro�ett3,,descr esin deta,; g p dcstr, ':theknumixr 4f ^.rehictes, _ 11. p cs>jon,aod s' ForaIIaII c�a cfs1.' i^o ecLs,
e J. _ P iv°R- For
0astrucSuon teQnests, deserib thj br o iv ðtr IIest is r.l cem� t, P J i[et an or wheib6r project
is °single or mul yer;requesti )'
$. PfO eci u env�roomeatt' asses3ment or an EIIt
� 1fIC321QIk'
sf " n�red.;F is required- fori'se:pro�ect
ust
P P !
(Note- For�iisle�, slso`ind�catewhst$er a .
I
proposal. and,the;st0 of fhese.docaraents, req ar ezpa oIIS, provide jusziCca2i0II that the agwcy
ri if ;,
has the operstina. faudiBg to .
J
Aluiclament K
1 S�C�lE}L!'��S 1 � �CO ect.l)eserl Ora / rustlilc.3hOp Shy*
Page.2,,•
6. F ..., ing � ` P Win` Yew • ;above)
unas Re est (fir - r eradicated
a_ ' Section 53 Funding Request
tch 2/0(00 Msicivng,Source -
h; 'Pr sed'Local Ma
77.�A
(Note: Match minimum requiiemcnf '5;O*/6''f6 operIwa.; 7ofwfor Opitao
and
t~' 'Other-. Pi�ogxar=ed'•or Pro d:Fund' list b }, fuad sake ount }_ AS O/ 00 0
4
7S 00 O
o0 0 -
d. Total Project Cost;;
e. "Fund. Exptnditare Plan (Capital Projects Orzly)
Item Descri tiott Cosh
3 e
S. .
6_
" 67 o00
# Total 'project cost`in iiem 5e sh;bWd equal;ro, item..bd'_
ppz g g _ Tests only.} Provide -an operating budjet for tale
f. ratio $ud et..(Opecatmgassestauce -re�L
program year'in which' Suction 18 assistannce is::equesed.
R�
b fy
any. y g C §- 311, §5307, §53309, etc) rtceived
g Program, )
7. Prior Fdndin Zdeut> We ', riot ear fecal fundin 5
for the project (list by year fundin and amount
8. Fuiure 'Requests multi-year PmJ } dicaze ,xlo�v a�ey anticipated Section 5311 funding
u gram years outside th currr6nt or� m horizon:
� in p °gym '
9'_ Efforts to Seek Alter aiive'Fcnd Sources. Agencies seeking Section 5311 fiords for operations,
Purposes must documeAt c�efforis and achievernen.ts and /or,planned;efforts to find alternative
fund sources to,continue, its =transit services.
c:` sxt 1 8198- rr009pjw.doc
City of Petalurr a
°
Planning, Departinent
R0. 61'
Petaluma, CA °9495
NOTICE, OF EXEMPT
ION
TO` °Sonoma County Clerk:.
2300 County Center Drive
La Plaza; - Building B :Suite 177
'Santa Rosa, CA 95406:.
Pfoiect Title Petaluma Depot Bus T'
ransfer Station s,
Project Annlican't �CityofPetaluma.
n : 200' ,feet�� east o
Project Location f Copeland Street betwee'n East Washington and
East "`U''Street;,adjacent to,the Petaluma`D'epotBuildings.
Project Description Develop a vlulti= modal. Transit Mall `which would be a regional
bus transfer. facility to be utilized ISy major transit providers
within, Sonoma County`.
aempt Status (check one)'
Statutory - Exemptions Categorical Exemptions (CEQA)
(Ar ticle 18:Section.21080
1 5260 {Article 19:Se ' bn�2108�1 13001
[ ] Ministerial {Sec 1'5268} ( X] Existina, Facilities {Sec.I5-01 }.
[ J Feasibility/Plannmg'Study {Sec.1D�62, }. (' ] Replacen&it,or: Reconstruction {Sec.15303;
[ ] Emergency Project {Sec 1°52691' [ ] . Small ;Structures {See -15303 )
[ ]General Rule {�Sec:15061(b)Q)} [ ] ,?Minor Alterat ons,{Sec.15304}
[ ] ,Other:.{ Sec. }
[ ] Minor.`Subdivisions {Sec. 1,53
Exclusions' (NEPA)
["X] Categorical Exclusions (Sec: 171.117(c)(1'0)) .
p o ect sex P P ly P tiuctlon
Reasons why r 1 i em t : NEPA s ecfi_ cal eYem is the cons 6 of .bus transfer
p
pen. area consisting of risen er s h
facilities an o p g elte rs g and related street
im p rovements when- located in a commercial area or•,o ui center
boarding, are kiosks
ther, high acti t in which there is
a de uate .s J
treet capacity projected "ro'ected bos traffic. The Traffic ,Engineer has conducted the
neeessarv.
„analyst d
to' etermine that ca p act exists within the- adjacent rights -of -way to
accommodate thesminor
increase ui bus trips anticipated as a result of this Lptcject_
Subject: Possible Loss of Grant Funding Due to Inactivity
s is` to recommend that youxtake immediat iih :
`.. D e;action to meet w� officials� from � the Golden Gate Transit
v
pro ms petty. If a brealcthrou gh,
eakthrough'in „cooperatlon.resulting in.a� commitment io dpvelopment on,the railroad
create
' does not come zl out,tiefore arch 2000, the:City siands to los0'ihe
following funding;,
1- $1,00'0,000 in Federal'Fundingflowing through.ahe CounfY.'
2: S 350;000 m;;ISTE. Funding `autho.rized,tfiree.years.ago..
3. : 75,000 ih "TranAi Capit; -M Improvement Funding
S1; 125;000 Subtotal' (if Funds: in March 2000•
In speaking with,the:Citv's Traffic -En neers there.
is�a
n gi :;high level:of "frustration with Golden Gate Transit
Dist
rict.official5;because,thev� . YC_ e°n uncooperative about working °on a," project ^to create a'transit hub.
Without'their cooperation, there is no project tio'capital improvements . :and,no - expenditure of grant.funds.
1 understandthat Goiden Gate Trans it.Distnct officials who function' as-thestaff, to the railroad JP.k feel
that the. property`'should be more � aluab' 6 ° han ;has been originally recognized Perhaps a meeting Frith
them: sort;this,outand create uses thar�iould ;�-e,them .,the values they ;want. For example, Bonne
and limited commercial on the ground floo ,stor< i pr te ransit high par king
and
• r land value
r m
a.�ocd re n r rm We would be:able to a �1� our funds fo of,the infrastructure
im rovements and met tfie old train;station buildings PP
turn ,o a p, ope ,
p b cleaned, up and put to productive use::
While thetimin isbad �taluma •
' g: .
� �y_Specifie Plan has notyet been adopted, at least some
because the Central Pe
-action is required to�use the' aforementioned grant fund's' before they are lost.
,�',m
1 200
City ®f Pejtal» a, C01ifo nia
. Memoranda
City Manager's Offce, 11 English Street, Petaluma,'CA 94952
(707) 778 -4345 Fax '(707) 778 -4419 E- mail: cityin r(�ci.pefaluma.ca.us
DATE: January 31, 2000'
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
r
FROM: James Ryan, Transit Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Petaluma Transit Mall .Update
This memo is in response. to. a.request from a`Councilmember for information concerning the
status of finding grants for the' Petaluma `Transit Mall Project. They are as follows:
*Transit Capital Improvement _(TGI) Grant S 75,000
Must be to TCI B "oard by'March 1, 2000
® ISTEA Grant $ 350,000
Funds must start being spent, by September 1, 2000.
• Section 18 Grant #1 $ 100,000
Funds must start being spent by October -1, 2001
• Section 18 Grant #2 $ 78,000
Funds must start. being spent by October 1, 2002
® TDA Funds $ 100,000
These are matching 'funds and must be reclaimed by
June .2001
® ... iy
Federal Sonm
oa "Goan '.Earmark. $ 1,100;000
Must.have project ready to go by March 1, 2000
The ro ect has been stalled n for sometime due to the i
p j . - 'ability to procure ,a deed or easement to
the property for the transit,mall,situated on the Northwestern Pacific. Railroad Authority's station
site 'in downtown Petaluma.
There will be a meeting at Petaluma City Hall with City and County staff ,on Tuesday, February
1, 2000, at 3 OO;PM in the Law Library (Conference Room #2)to discuss the future of the
Sonoma County Federal. Earmark as it pertains to the Transit Mall project. Your support and
attendance is requested. If you have further questions, please ;call me at 778 -4421. Thank you.
d1manager /transit/grant funding memo /kc
DATE:
CITE OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
En ee
Works ent, 22 Bas 94952
i "'ic ,
76 778 Zx(7¢7)`7784443� Mjiil.., lumdcaus
February 7, 2000
TO: Fred Stouder, City Manager
FROM: Rick Sklad�z Director of Public Facilities . Services
SUBJECT: Transit,Maff
Background/Histo
The Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authority ", RA) was created to purchase the NWP
Railway right -of -way from Southern Pacific Railroad Company. The 'Golden Gate Bridge
Highway and Transportation District (GGT) provides staff I -services f6r the NWPRA. 'Golden
Gate Bridge District staff working on NWPRA projects, provides reports t o the NWPRA Board.
On the afternoon of December 7�' V - in Smith dropped by Jim Ryan's. Office and delivered about
90%. of the backup, for the documents'. the County has been waiting for, to go
ahead with the $1.1, million 'earmark for the Trangit',M ll :in Petaluma. A meeting was' held with
ROMA design - group , City,of 'Potaluma, 'Sonoma Co ' urity Transit, (SCT) and GGT at. GGT's
ffi
'oces in San Rafael on Tuesday, December i4, at 1:00 P.M
During the meeting;, an overview of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and what part the Transit
Mall plays by ROMA and Hans Grunt was presented to GGT. GGT suggested that this plan was
a poor idea due to various ,concerns. See Jim Ryan's memo attached.
As per the ROMA plan reports the Bus Transfer Station,could become an important public
fAcility within Petaluma. It Will become an important landmark and gateway that visually marks
the entry, to downtown, creates' a, focus of activity, establishes, strong linkages., to, surrounding
areas; provides f6r linkages- to the anticipated rail facilities, and is .in keeping with the historic
character of the depot` buildings.
The Transit Mall will need to provide for the ,efficient movement and - transfer of passengers, for
the loadi'4' 9 and unloading , of y
es, for bic'cle access and parking, and for pedestrian access,
queuing, and waiting. Petdluma Bus Station should reinforce the identity of the community, and
the quality of life for its re residents.
Observations
A' staff liaison:'committee `has been developed consisting of Jim. Ryan,,, Allan Tilton, Mike Evert,
myself and Michael Moore, Community Development Director.. : During our meeting this
morning, pit. was evident that, if we are to retain available grants to fund, the Mall project, time is
of the essence'. From a staging standpoint,'two things have to happen within the next two to four
weeks:
1. A meeting must occur between GGT', you, the City Council and our committee to
decide whether a use agreement can be reached NWPRA in order to move
forward, or let this project lapse.
2. Arrive at a Council decision on the final location (Depot or Copeland).
From a traffic flow /congestion perspective only, the Mall location would. favor Copeland.
Considering stand- alone aspect of the Mall with regard 1to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan,
Copeland would also ;be the.location of choice for pedestrian traffic to the Depot and to the River
Walk area. ".
I would like to .receive your thoughts at our meeting on Wednesday, February 9, at 8:30 a.m. on
how we should proceed.
RK/slh
Attachments
r xc: Gene Beatty
Staff Committee Members: Jim Ryan, Allan Tilton, Mike Evert, Mike Moore
rstrawi,mall&c
i
r
Received at places CITY OF P ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
on 4.: a �- --��'� MEMORANDUM
City Manager's Office„ 1 En; lisp Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707j'778-4345 Far,(.707) 778-441,9 E -mail: citymgr@dpetalumaxa.us
us
DATE: February 22, 2000
TO, Mayor &Members ofthe City Council
FROM: Frederick C. Stouder
City Manager .
SUBJECT: Copeland Street Transit Mall,
Telephone Call with Jerome Kuvkendall
'Tuesday, February 22, 2000
The Northwestern Pacific 'Railroad Authority does not have a view on the location of the transit
mall although it does have a'history regarding this project that goes back twelve years or so;. He
stated that the City designed a facility to locate on Copeland thinking that the concept would go
forward Once the Central Petaluma Specific Plan - was underway, the thinking evolved to
perhaps' having the location closer to the train depot. The CPSP` process concluded that it should
be closer to the depot.
Mr. Kuykendall stated that studies still need to be done on the -transit mall location, on how
transit uses can best be developed: Sonoma Transit agreed to take the lead over three years ago
to see that such studies were completed, according to Mr. Kuykendall. The studies have not
been done: The CP SP contract services provider (ROMA) did a design concept, which was
presented to: the NWPRR Board. 'The Board saw ,'significant problems, with the concept and felt
the City should. look at ;alternatives. The NWPRR Board never did' concur on a site, and the
study did not occur., NWPRR doesn't feel comfortable ;because there are a number of
unanswered questions. In fact, NWPRR,recently adopted a set of'criteria.regarding development
or uses on NWPRR -owned property. These include the restriction that the development must
support Ti Lure train patronage, that development not interfere with 'train/transportation uses, and
that development should maximize financial .benefits to NWPRR. Lacking a credible study
according to Mr. Kuykendall' and provided the Board has a schematic from the CPSP process,
the 'N;WPRR doesn't have a position or site 'in mind itself. There has 'been no attempt to do
technical evaluation of the sites such as analyzing traffic on the streets ", eta. - There are three
operators coming, together in this area,, and no study work has been done on the technical
feasibility of;how it might work.:
Mr. Kuykendall indicated that on the one hand Copeland looks Pike a better site, except i f trains,�'
are in operation over the next ten years, then perhaps a site closer to the train sta Lgin does make
sense.
Mr. Kuykendall was open to .discussing with the City a possible procedure or long -term lease on.
the entire ,five -acre development site. The NWPRR did purchase the land with grant funds and it
..may have to return the grant funds if the land was sold. A, lease arrangement perhaps would not
require that the funds be: repaid according to Mr. Kuykendall.
Note:
The land or right -of -way is owned by the Railroad Authority. The NWPRR Authority is made
up of Marin, Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. The property was purchased with - Proposition
116 monies according to Alan Tilton. We are pursuing the grant conditions question..
i
cc: Rick Skladzien
4
sAstouder \memoranda .
2
CITY OF PETALUVIA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department, ll' English Street; Petaluma; CA 94952
(707) 778 -4314 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -mail: mmoore@ci:petaluma.ca.us
DATE: February 16, 2000
TO: Fred Stouder, City'Manager
FROM: Mike Moore, Community Development Dire '
SUBJECT` Mall Options
I have reviewed the memo from Jim Ryan regarding the three options. for resolving the transit
mall issue. A determination on the location of the mall is necessary in order to proceed with
project grant entitlements. The options include acquiring the NWP property using a combination
of housing and redevelopment funds in order to construct the, transit mall adjacent to the NWP
rail line; proceeding with the transit, mall on Copeland Street as originally; and foregoing the
grant funding for the transit mall and related improvements at this time, except for that can be
reprogrammed for the purchase of new buses. It is my understanding that the City Council has
previously expressed its support for locating the transit mall'on the NWP property, adjacent to a
future passenger rail line,.
My department would have two comments on the options. The first pertains to the proposed use
of housing funds for the purchase of the NWP property. After discussing this with Bonne
Gaebler, the most important question regarding the use of the approximately $3 million of
housing funds for the, purchase of the land is the length_ of the repayment period. Given the
limited amount of housing funds, as well as the limited availability of land for potential
affordable housing development, it is critical that any use of housing funds include a repayment
plan that does not extend'beyond 3 years from their date of commitment. A long -term payback (5
to 10 years) will compromise our ability to react to the needs of local non - profit housing
developers and our ability to continue to produce the amount and variety of affordable housing
that the community has come to expect.
One other point related to the prospective purchase of the NWP property is the consideration that
it may not be economically .feasible to construct the transit mall on that property once It is
acquired.. In other words, a transit mall on the property will probably not provide the level , of
eco nomic.retufrf on'investment as other, more intense commercial, office or mixed uses. Its my
understanding that this may be part of the reason why the rail authority has been reluctant to
negotiate with. the City to locate the mall on the property.
The second comment pertains to the location of the mall on Copeland Street. There are certainly
some cost- efficient, economic development reasons for locating the mall on the street. The grant
will provide funding to make significant improvements within the existing ' righi -of -way and the
surrounding area (particularly the Washington Street Roundabout); the project can be done more
quickly because' we already control the site; and, it will provide a Central Petaluma destination
that could be a catalyst for further development in the vicinity that would implement the
provisions of, the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. From an urban design standpoint, Copeland
Street is located well within acceptable walking distance standards from the rail line: in the
eventuality that passenger rail service begins operating. Any new development on the NVvT
property can be designed' to provide a "convenient and interesting route between the rail line and
transit mall for passengers moving' between modes of transit.
I would be happy to discuss these options with you or the City Council in greater detail at the
appropriate time.
c; Rick Skladzien, Director of Public Facilities and Services
.Bonne Gaebler, Housing. Adminstrator
Jim Ryan Transit Coordinator
2
r ,
CX
A